Employees in Chief Justice Raymond Zondo’s office face lifestyle audits and law enforcement agencies could be deployed if cases are complex.
EMPLOYEES in Chief Justice Raymond Zondo’s office face lifestyle audits and law enforcement agencies – the Hawks, the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) and the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) – could be deployed if cases are complex.
The Office of the Chief Justice is responsible for the administration of superior courts – the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, High Courts as well as specialised courts such as Labour and Labour Appeal Courts, the Land Claims Court, the Competition Appeal Court and the Electoral Court – which adjudicate various matters excluded from the jurisdiction of the high and lower courts.
It also provides funding for the activities and operations of the courts and administrative and technical support as well as monitoring their overall performance.
The Office of the Chief Justice has over 2,000 employees but the policy does not apply to the country’s more than 200 judges.
In its draft lifestyle audit policy, which was tabled to trade unions at the departmental bargaining chamber last month, the office states that its internal audit unit may conduct lifestyle audits if the case is not complex.
”If the case is complex, the lifestyle audit shall be done by the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks) assisted by competent authorities (such as the FIC, Auditor-General Tsakani Maluleke and the SIU),” reads the policy.
In instances where an investigation identifies possible corruption, the case will be referred to the SA Police Service.
According to the policy, the audits will outline trigger events in an employee’s lifestyle that would serve as red flags in relations to his or her expenditure and lifestyle exceeding his or her income.
Lifestyle audits will include an amalgamation of reports from a variety of databases in order to understand the financial profile of a person regarding legitimate declared income against known and observed assets.
In cases where an employee’s expenditure exceeds his or her income, an investigation will ensue to establish through legally sound methods, independent corroboration of information and collection of evidence to assist in identifying undeclared sources of income, whether a person is living beyond his or her means as well as debts, assets, income, criminal records, trusts, hidden assets and undeclared income.
If required an objective evaluation of a person’s standard of living will be undertaken to express an opinion derived by applying audit sampling methods as governed by legislation and complying with audit standards to establish whether that individual is living beyond his or her means and is abusing power or influence for personal gain.
Ethics officers will also be empowered to conduct lifestyle reviews whose results will be used as an indicator or clue that something may be amiss but without evidence cannot be regarded as conclusive proof of illicit activities.
A lifestyle review will include at an employee’s shares, loan accounts, income-generating assets, trusts, directorships and partnerships, remunerated work outside the department, consultancies and retainerships, sponsorships, gifts and hospitality, ownership, interests in immovable property and vehicles.
According to the draft policy, triggers for a lifestyle review include verification of financial declarations captured on the eDisclosure system, through which designated government employees disclose their financial interests, whistleblowers’ reports, tip-offs and complaints on an employee’s lifestyle and random sample-taking profile and characteristics of a fraudster as well as opportunism trends such as promotions and high-risk positions.
Lifestyle investigations will be conducted by a forensic investigator after being referred by an ethics officer showing expenditure constantly exceeding income, unexplained wealth and should it reveal acts of corruption such as tender collusion, falsification of documents or signatures a case will be referred to the police for criminal investigation and an internal disciplinary hearing instituted.
In addition, if during the course of the lifestyle investigation information reflecting negatively on an employee’s integrity is uncovered such as high indebtedness, which are referred to pressures in lifestyle audit principles, and if substantiated should be brought to the State Security Agency’s attention for vetting purposes.
Office of the Chief Justice employees had until Friday to make inputs on the draft policy.
Judiciary spokesperson Lusanda Ntuli said that the draft lifestyle audit policy is still being consulted on and no memoranda of understanding have yet been signed between the Office of the Chief Justice and the other law enforcement agencies and institutions.
